I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Development Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 12 February 2015

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Auckland Development Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Chris Darby

 

Members

Cr Anae Arthur Anae

Cr Calum Penrose

 

Cr Cameron Brewer

Cr Dick Quax

 

Mayor Len Brown, JP

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Member David Taipari

 

Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Penny Webster

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr George Wood, CNZM

 

Cr Denise Krum

 

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

Member Liane Ngamane

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

Rita Bento-Allpress

Democracy Advisor

 

5 February 2015

Contact Telephone: 09 890 8149

Email: rita.bento-allpress@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 

** This meeting will be webcast live – www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz  **


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

 

 

Responsibilities

 

This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration of economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years.  It will guide the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning, housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with these activities.  Key responsibilities include:

 

·         Unitary Plan

·         Plan changes to operative plans

·         Designation of Special Housing Areas

·         Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing

·         Spatial Plans including Area Plans

·         City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board) and city transformation projects

·         Tamaki regeneration projects

·         Built Heritage

·         Urban design

 

Powers

 

(i)      All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a)     powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body responsibilities)

(b)     where the committee’s responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendation only

(ii)      Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii)     Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iv)    Power to establish subcommittees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·         Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·         Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·         Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·         In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·         The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·         However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·         All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Staff

 

·         All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·         Only staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·         Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

IMSB

 

·         Members of the IMSB who are appointed members of the meeting remain.

·         Other IMSB members and IMSB staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

CCOs

 

·         Representatives of a CCO can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the CCO.

 

 

 

 

 


Auckland Development Committee

12 February 2015

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

9          Plan Change 32 Clevedon Village to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) to be made Operative                                                                                     9

10        Volcanic viewshaft plan changes: to be made operative                                        15

11        City Centre Integration Update – For period 1 November 2014 to 31 January 2015    19

12        Central Wharves Strategy                                                                                           25

13        Aotea Precinct Development                                                                                      29

14        Cost of Residential Servicing Study                                                                         45  

15        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

16        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                                 61

C1       Special Housing Area Deferred Requests                                                                61

C2       Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan submissions - council position for mediation and hearings -  Historic Character and the Pre-1944 Demolition Control Overlay     61

C3       Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Council Position for Mediation and Hearings - City Centre Port Precinct                                                                                                    62  

 


1          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 3 December 2014, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

5          Public Input

 

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local  authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

8          Notices of Motion

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

 


Auckland Development Committee

12 February 2015

 

Plan Change 32 Clevedon Village to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) to be made Operative

 

File No.: CP2015/00631

 

  

Purpose

1.       To approve Plan Change 32 Clevedon Village (PC32) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) to be made operative. 

Executive Summary

2.       PC32 is a council initiated plan change that proposed rezoning of approximately 649.4 ha of land around Clevedon Village. PC32 rezones land from Business 1, Residential Unserviced and Rural 1 zone to Clevedon Residential 1, 2 zone, Clevedon Rural zone, Clevedon Business zone, Clevedon community zone and various Public Open Space zones. The Plan Change was publicly notified on 22 October 2010 (See Attachment A for area subject to PC32).

3.       The council’s decision on PC32 was released in October 2012.  Three appeals to the council’s decision were filed with the Environment Court.  The Environment Court issued three consent orders resolving the appeals.  Council can now approve PC32 to be made fully operative. 

4.       A copy of PC32 as amended by the Environment Court consent orders is contained in Attachment B.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve, in accordance with the consent order and direction issued by the Environment Court, Plan Change 32 Clevedon Village to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) (Attachment B of the report) to be made operative in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b)      authorise, the Manager Planning South to complete the statutory processes required to make Plan Change 32 Clevedon Village to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) operative pursuant to Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, including determination of the operative and notification date.

 

 

Discussion

5.       PC32 is a council initiated plan change that rezones approximately 649.4 ha of land for further expansion and intensification of Clevedon Village.  The plan change was notified on 22 October 2010. Attachment A illustrates the location of the area subject to the plan change.      

6.       Following release of the council’s decision in October 2012, three appeals were filed with the Environment Court. The table below identifies the appellants and the section 274 parties to each appeal.

 

 

 

Appeal lodged by

Section 274 parties

John Hunt (Hunt) EVN-2012-000220

Karaka Harbourside Estate Limited

Karaka Harbourside Estate Limited (KHEL) EVN-2012-000223

Acorn Parish Holdings Limited

Auckland Transport

Clevedon Cares Incorporated

Hololio Farms Limited

Nick Jones

Josephine Elworthy

Watercare Services Limited

Watercare Services Limited (Watercare) EVN-2012-000226

Karaka Harbourside Estate Limited

 

7.       The key issues raised in the appeals included:

·    inclusion of additional land within the plan change area – (Hunt);

·    additional land to be rezoned with urban residential densities within KHEL’s landholding within the floodplain  – (KHEL); and

·    date of prohibited activity status for development reliant on public wastewater system (Watercare).

 

8.       Consent order resolving the Hunt appeal was issued on 18 September 2014 and consent order resolving the Watercare appeal and part of KHEL appeal was issued on 25 September 2014.  On 23 December 2014, the Environment Court issued the final consent order for KHEL appeal resolving all appeals to this plan change.

9.       The appeal process did not change the purpose or intent of the plan change. However, amendments have been made to parts of the plan change (text and maps), which have resulted in clarifying the provisions, and provided a greater certainty of the outcomes sought.  Council can now approve PC32 to be made fully operative.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

10.     This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC32 operative. The Franklin Local Board will be notified once PC32 becomes operative.

Maori Impact Statement

11.     This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC32 operative. Iwi will be notified of PC32 becoming operative. 

General

12.     Declaring PC32 operative is the last phase of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) process for the Plan change. The recommendation to make PC32 operative is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

13.     Pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA, the Auckland Development Committee can now approve PC32 and once approved, notify the Plan Change as operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

14.     There will be some administrative costs involved in making PC32 operative and consequential updating of the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section).  These costs can be accommodated within the existing budgets of Plans and Places Department.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Structure Plan Map

13

bView

Operative Version of PC32 (Under Separate Cover)

 

      

Signatories

Authors

Vrinda Moghe - Area Planning and Policy South

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 



Auckland Development Committee

12 February 2015

 



Auckland Development Committee

12 February 2015

 

Volcanic viewshaft plan changes: to be made operative

 

File No.: CP2015/00458

 

  

Purpose

1.       To approve the following region-wide Plan Changes for Volcanic Viewshaft Protection to the Auckland Council District Plan operative:

·     Auckland Council District Plan Operative Auckland City Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2013 – Proposed Plan Change (PC 1)

·     Auckland Council District Plan Operative North Shore Section 2002 – Plan Change 40 (PC 40)

·     Auckland Council District Plan Operative Manukau Section 2002 – Proposed Plan Change 59 (PC 59)

·     Auckland Council District Plan Operative Central Area Section 2004 – Proposed Plan Change 67 (PC 67)

 

2.       To make operative, in part, Plan Change 339 to the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999 (PC 339).

Executive Summary

3.       Plan Changes 1, 40, 43, 59, 67 and 339 (the Plan Changes) were Council initiated plan changes to sections of the Auckland Council District Plan (the District Plan).

4.       The Plan Changes were initiated to protect viewshafts (three dimensional planes from a public view point or points) to a number of volcanic cones and/or volcanic features across the Auckland Region by giving effect to Change 8 - Volcanic Features and Viewshafts (Change 8) to the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement (ACRPS). Change 8 was made operative on 21 March 2012.

5.       On 27 August 2014, a Hearing Panel of Independent Commissioners appointed to determine the Plan Changes to the District Plan released decisions on the Plan Changes (the Decisions). The Decisions confirmed all of the Plan Changes as notified with the exception of PC 59 and PC 339.

6.       The PC 59 decision introduced a new height sensitive area over Bucklands Beach. No appeals were received on the PC 59 decision so it can now be made operative.

7.       The PC339 decision deleted Viewshaft T7 and re-inserted Viewshaft W15 (as a locally significant volcanic viewshaft). Three appeals have been lodged against the PC 339 decision (the Appeals). As the Appeals affect seven viewshafts, being A13, E11, E12, E13, H7, O2 and O10, PC 339 can only be made operative in part.

8.       The Hearing Panel directed that changes be made to the respective sections of the District Plan, reflecting the new, deleted and amended viewshafts as notified in the Plan Changes, as well as any consequential amendments required to the text of the District Plan and the associated planning maps in order to implement the decisions in full.

9.       The Hearing Panel also confirmed an additional plan change, PC 43 to the Auckland Council District Plan - Waitakere Section but as the viewshaft relevant to PC 43 is under appeal (as part of the appeals on PC 339), PC 43 cannot be made operative at this stage.

 

 

10.     The Council is now required to amend the District Plan to give effect to the Hearing Panel’s decision and make the Plan Changes either operative or operative in part.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve Plan Changes 1, 40, 59 and 67 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands, North Shore, Manukau and Central sections) in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.

b)      approve, in part, Plan Change 339 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus section)  (with the exception of Viewshafts A13, E11, E12, E13, H7, O2 and O10), in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.

c)      authorise the Manager, Planning - Central and Islands to complete the necessary statutory processes required to make Plan Changes 1, 40, 59 and 67 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands, North Shore, Manukau and Central sections) operative in accordance with Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

d)      authorise the Manager, Planning Central/Islands to complete the necessary statutory requirements to make Plan Change 339 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus section) operative in part (with the exception of Viewshafts A13, E11, E12, E13, H7, O2, O10) in accordance with Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

 

Discussion

11.     The Auckland volcanic field covers approximately 100 square kilometres and originally contained 48 explosion craters which gave rise to the landmark scoria cones of urban Auckland. A number of these features have been lost through quarrying and development. Many of the remaining volcanic features are of regional or national significance, while others are of local significance, or contribute cumulatively to the volcanic landscape and character of the region. The 35 regionally significant volcanic features found in Map Series 2a of the ACRPS contain 13 scoria cones and islands which have volcanic viewshafts and/or height sensitive areas attributed to the protection of their visual integrity.

12.     The Plan Changes are intended to give effect to Change 8 to the ACRPS that was made operative on 21 March 2012. The Plan Changes will give effect to the ACRPS in accordance with section 75(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991, by providing for them in the District Plan provisions and associated planning maps.

13.     The Plan Changes were notified on 31 May 2013. A total of 61 submissions and 21 late submissions were received. A hearing was held from 11 February to 14 February 2014 at three locations across the region. The Hearings Panel released their decisions on the Plan Changes on 27 August 2014.

14.     The Plan Changes proposed 35 new viewshafts in accordance with Change 8 to the ACRPS. With the exception of Viewshaft T7 (identified in PC 339), the Hearing Panel confirmed the inclusion of all viewshafts identified in the Plan Changes.    

15.     Change 8 also deleted five viewshafts as they were no longer considered regionally significant. All of the deleted viewshafts were located in the Isthmus section of the District Plan. PC 339 assessed the viewshafts proposed for deletion to determine whether they were of local significance and should remain protected at a District Plan level. This assessment found that viewshafts A4 and W10 were locally significant and should be protected. PC 339 therefore proposed to delete Viewshafts E7, W14, W15, W16 and W17 and retain Viewshafts A4 and W10.

16.     The Hearing Panel, in their decision on PC 339, agreed to the retention of viewshafts A4 and W10 as locally significant volcanic viewshafts as proposed. In addition they found that viewshaft W15 should also be retained and protected.

17.     PC 59 was amended to include a height sensitive area over Bucklands Beach. No appeals have been lodged against the PC 59 decision and it can therefore be made operative.

18.     Three appeals have been lodged against the PC 339 decision. These appeals affect seven viewshafts (A13, E11, E12, E13, H7, O2 and O10) and, as such, PC 339 can only be made operative in part.

19.     The Hearing Panel directed that changes be made to the respective sections of the District Plan reflecting the new, deleted and amended viewshafts as notified in the Plan Changes, as well as any consequential amendments required to the text of the District Plan and the associated planning maps, in order to implement the Plan Change decisions in full.

20.     While the Hearing Panel confirmed Plan Change 43 to the Auckland Council District Plan - Waitakere section (PC 43) it cannot be made operative at this stage as the only viewshaft relevant to PC 43 is subject to appeal as part of the appeals lodged against PC 339. A decision to make PC 43 operative will be made pending the outcome of the appeals.

21.     The Council is now required to amend the District Plan, giving effect to the Hearing Panel’s decision and make the Plan Changes either operative or operative in part.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

22.     The Plan Changes are now at the final stage of being integrated into the District Plan. This stage does not require input from the Local Boards. Notwithstanding, relevant Local Boards will be notified once the Plan Changes become operative

Maori Impact Statement

23.     All relevant Iwi below were notified of the Plan Changes:

Ki Tamaki Tribunal Trust
Ngati Te Ata (Awaroa Environment)
Ngatu Maru Runanga
Ngati Paoa Trust
Ngati Paoa Whanau Trust
Ngati rehua-Ngatiwai Ki Aotea Trust Board
Ngati Wai Trust
Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara
Ngati Whatua o Orakei maori Board trust
Te Kawerau A Maki Trust
Te Uri o Hau
Te Akitai Waiohua
Ngati Tamaoho

Two hui were held on 29 and 30 January 2013 in Manukau and Orewa. A total of nine iwi attended. Iwi will be notified once the Plan Changes become operative.

General

24.     <Enter text>

Implementation Issues

25.     There will be some minor administrative costs involved in making the proposed plan changes operative and updating the District Plan. These costs will be covered by the Plans & Places Budget.

26.     Making the Plan Changes operative is the last phase of the Resource Management Act 1991 process and is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Decision version - PC40 (Under Separate Cover)

 

bView

Decision version - PC59 (Under Separate Cover)

 

cView

Decision version - PC339 Part A (Under Separate Cover)

 

dView

Decision version - PC339 Part B (Under Separate Cover)

 

eView

Decision version - PC1 (Under Separate Cover)

 

fView

Decision version - PC67 (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Paulina Wythes - Team Leader Planning - Central/Islands

Hannah Thompson - Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

12 February 2015

 

City Centre Integration Update – For period 1 November 2014 to 31 January 2015

 

File No.: CP2015/00963

 

  

Purpose

1.       To receive an update on the progress of City Centre initiatives between 1 November 2014 to 31 January 2015

Executive Summary

 

Federal Street Shared Space Upgrade

2.       Minor safety enhancements are underway including installation of additional planters and signage

3.       Dining licences have been issued to enable further street activation through outdoor dining.

 

Myers Park Upgrade

4.       A blessing for the ‘Myers Park Play’ (playground opening) was carried out with the Waitemata Local Board on 26th November 2014.

5.       A formal Opening Celebration for the Stage 1 works will be held on Sunday 15th February 2015.

6.       The Auckland City Centre Advisory Board (ACCAB) has endorsed allocation of an additional $3.3m of targeted rate funding for Stage II development works, in accordance with the overall Myers Park development plan.

7.       Noted that options to improve / modify the underpass linking Myers Park to Aotea Square/Greys Ave carpark site will be explored through the Aotea Framework study.

 

Bledisloe House Customer Services Centre and Bledisloe Lane Upgrade

8.       The lane and Customer Service Centre were completed in December 2014 and are now open to the public.

9.       The pocket park on Wellesley St is nearing completion.

10.     Discussions have been held with the adjacent building owner to encourage retail opening onto the eastern side of the lane.

 

Description: image

Freyberg Square and Ellen Melville Hall

11.     The proposed improvements are funded by local board and targeted rate funds, and will provide a significant city centre community hub and public open space, supported by the developing laneways network.

12.     Professional services will be tendered in February for both Freyberg Square and Ellen Melville Hall, to start construction in 2015/16.

13.     A strategy for the potential redevelopment of the wider High St precinct is being considered, to provide options and inform discussions with stakeholders.

 

Precinct Frameworks

14.     Framework documents will be prepared for key city centre precincts, to collate planning and project information, propose options, and inform decisions on projects and initiatives from Council and CCOs for:

o   Downtown – complete. Further workstreams underway to develop options for Central Wharves and Downtown West areas.

o   Aotea – preparation underway, due mid-2015. Liaising closely with the Civic Administration Building (CAB) study to incorporate findings and align recommendations.

o   Learning Quarter – to commence mid-2015.

o   Victoria Quarter – to commence end-2015.

o   Quay Park – to commence early 2015

o   City Centre Transport - review of scope, issues and outcomes underway, including review of public transport options and freight / motorway interfaces with city centre movement.

 

Downtown Public Space – Queen Elizabeth Square

15.     The Auckland Development Committee at its 11 September 2014 meeting passed a series of resolution points relating to the sale or lease of Queen Elizabeth (QE) Square land to Precinct Properties New Zealand Limited (PPNZL) enabling the comprehensive redevelopment of the Downtown Shopping Centre (DSC) block and related provision of new and/or enhanced downtown public spaces (Resolution number AUC/2014/111).  Work on the following resolution points has now been concluded as follows:

Sale or lease of Queen Elizabeth Square

16.     At the meeting it was resolved to sell or lease land on which part of QE Square stands and reinvest the proceeds of the sale or lease in the delivery of alternative public spaces along the downtown waterfront. The resolution was:

That the Auckland Development Committee:

g)       agree that staff report back to the Auckland Development Committee with an update on the alternative public spaces design development as part of the Quay Street upgrade project, sale and lease options and public evaluation options

17.     Commercial negotiations for the disposal of QE Square to PPNZL, on behalf of council, led by Auckland Council Properties Limited, in conjunction with Auckland Transport, are nearing completion.  They have formed part of a wider development agreement negotiation between council, Auckland Transport and PPNZL that will secure the integrated construction of the City Rail Link tunnels through the DSC site.

 

18.     This advice provides an update on the issues associated with divestment on a freehold or leasehold basis.

19.     The value for QE Square has been tentatively agreed consistent with advice from a senior registered valuer.

20.     In assessing the value of the site, it must be recognised that as a stand-alone development opportunity QE Square is significantly constrained.  It is bordered on three sides by PPNZL owned buildings and nearly half of the site footprint is impacted by the CRL tunnels. Redevelopment of QE Square will be optimised if it is properly integrated with the DSC development.

21.     The tenure options available for divestment of QE Square are freehold or leasehold, either on a terminating basis with ground rental for the entire term paid at commencement of the lease or on a terminating basis with ongoing ground rental payments.

22.     PPNZL propose to develop 20,000m2 of retail space and 35,000m2 of office space, including some 400 parking spaces on the DSC and QE Square land.  In order to accommodate the CRL tunnels in the basement of the DSC development, and minimise the associated compensation payment, the basement parking will seamlessly extend from the DSC development into the sub strata area of QE Square.

23.     Offering QE Square with leasehold tenure would result in a leasehold site forming a relatively small part of a major development that is physically integrated through the form of the buildings and basements across all of PPNZL’s otherwise freehold land. The DSC block is in total some 12,227m2, including 1,892m2 for QE Square.

24.     If the QE Square site is offered to PPNZL on a leasehold basis it would create an anomaly in tenure across the PPNZL overall block.  It would complicate the overall tenure for the development and negatively impact on its completed value.  The terminating nature of the tenure may also restrict the next generation of development on the block.

25.     During negotiations with PPNZL, it has indicated a strong reluctance to enter a leasehold arrangement for this site (for the reasons set out above), and also because its shareholder base is generally cautious about investing in non-freehold land.  PPNZL requires support from its shareholder base for the DSC redevelopment.

26.     It has been made clear that if PPNZL had to consider the QE Square opportunity on a leasehold basis only, then with it would have to be by way of a prepaid leasehold interest. PPNZL would not enter into a leasehold arrangement where there was an ongoing annual rent requirement.

27.     PPNZL has indicated that leasehold tenure with prepaid rental is likely to result in a significant discount off the freehold value. This could be as much as 15% of the freehold value.

28.     This value reduction is unlikely to be recovered (in present value terms) by the eventual reversion of the land back to Council in say 125 years’ time. Land value growth over 125 years would need to exceed an average of 4.6%pa before the leasehold discount was recovered by the eventual reversion. This analysis is based on council’s relatively low discount rate which reflects its cost of capital. In other words, taking time into account, the Council is better off receiving the higher amount of money at the earliest date.

29.     More significantly, any reduction in upfront payment for the land has an impact on the intent to use these receipts for reinvestment into alternative public space.  The reduced reinvestment may compromise the alternative public space outcomes.

 

 

 

30.     On balance, sale of the freehold interest is considered the most appropriate option in these circumstances. The Development Agreement negotiations are therefore being finalised on that basis.

Lower Queen Street Civic Space Boundary

h)       staff to consider the easterly extent of land to be sold based on a future building line to Lower Queen Street that optimises the design performance of the proposed pedestrianised civic space and has due regard for the District Plan amenity yard provisions in front of 1 Queen Street.

31.     Council’s Auckland Design Office has completed the Lower Queen Street Civic Space Boundary Assessment Study. It identifies a number configuration options for the Lower Queen Street civic space and evaluates them against five evaluation criteria – spatial proportions, edge quality, physical connectivity, views and permeability and safety.  The methodology and findings have been peer reviewed and validated by Gehl Architects.

32.     The study concludes that the optimum design performance of the Lower Queen Street civic space is achieved under a configuration which sets the western boundary of the space as the building line established by 21 Queen Street (Zurich House).  This in turn defines the extent of QE Square land to be sold to PPNZL i.e. land to the east of this building line.  The southern and northern boundaries are set by Galway and Tyler Street’s respectively and the eastern boundary by the Britomart Transport Centre/Chief Post Office building.

33.     The PPNZL owned space in front of 1 Queen Street (HSBC Tower) is zoned as an Amenity Yard in the District Plan protecting views from QE Square to the waterfront.  This prevents development from occurring as of right albeit a single storey café kiosk does currently occupy a significant portion of the space.  The Lower Queen Street Civic Space Boundary Assessment Study concludes that the recommended configuration of the Lower Queen Street civic space is superior to all other options in terms of its relationship to the Amenity Yard, even if it were developed out at some future stage.  

34.     PPNZL are working towards lodging a resource consent in the second quarter of 2015.  The resource consent will exclude the QE Square land as its sale is still subject to the completion of statutory processes (road stopping and land-use rezoning).  There is currently no indication from PPNZL of any intent to develop on the Amenity Yard.

 

Central Wharves Strategy

35.     A Central Wharves Report seeking endorsement of the recommendations is provided separately in the 12th February meeting Agenda.

 

Ferry Basin Redevelopment

36.     Growth forecasts for ferry patronage and routes, plus desired efficiency and amenity improvements, are factored into the Central Wharves study.

37.     Further planning and redevelopment of ferry infrastructure will be informed by the outcomes for the central wharves.

 

Quay St Seawall Seismic Upgrade

38.     Project commencement is deferred until 2020 under the Basic transport programme incorporated in the LTP, brought forward to a 2015 commencement in the alternative Auckland Plan transport programme.

39.     Further planning and redevelopment of seawall upgrade will be informed by the agreed outcomes for the central wharves. 

 

Quay Street Streetscape Upgrade

40.     Project funding is not included in the Basic transport programme incorporated in the LTP, and is included with a 2015 commencement in the alternative Auckland Plan transport programme.

41.     Further planning and redevelopment of the streetscape upgrade will be informed by the agreed outcomes for the central wharves, and the Downtown Public Open Spaces review.

 

Wynyard Quarter Integrated Roading

42.     Construction is planned to start in March 2015, with Stage 1 completion due end 2015 to align with the planned completion of the Fonterra Headquarters building on Fanshawe St.

 

City Centre Transport Infrastructure

43.     The integration of infrastructure and operational requirements during and post-CRL construction is progressing well. The implications and opportunities resulting from a potential light-rail overlay in the city centre will be carefully reviewed and coordinated with Auckland Transport.

44.     Concept planning for the Downtown Interchange is progressing well.  Design will consider best outcomes for rail, bus, businesses and the general public.

 

Westhaven Promenade

45.     Stage 1 completion due for official opening to the public in February 2015.

46.     Stage 2 currently proposed in the LTP for construction 2017 – 2019.

 

City Centre Cycle Network

47.     On January 30th, the Minister of Transport announced funding for a package of new national cycle routes, including the Nelson St cycleway which re-activates the old Nelson St Offramp and continues along Nelson St. The project is a joint NZTA / AT initiative and will be completed end of 2015.

48.     Initial stages of the Westhaven Drive / Beaumont St cycleway will commence shortly

 

Digital Auckland

49.     Council is evaluating the benefits of a centralised city-wide digital platform for data on buildings and infrastructure, based on leading technological innovations from the Christchurch re-build and elsewhere.

50.     Investigations have commenced to collate all existing digital information and relevant data held by Auckland Council and CCO’s.

51.     A Business Case is due mid-2015 to consider costs and benefits, resource requirements and timeframes for delivery. 

 

Skypath

52.     The resource consent was publicly notified by Council on 5th December 2014, with submissions closing late January 2015. Approximately 11,600 submissions were received and are being collated.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      receive the City Centre Integration update report for the period 1 November 2014 to 31 January 2015.

 

 

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

53.     The City Centre Integration team provides the Waitemata Local Board with regular updates. The team has also provided recent updates for the Orakei and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards.

Maori Impact Statement

54.     A range of project updates was discussed with Iwi at a hui in December 2014. Feedback has focused on the importance of the water space and waterfront to Maori, the ability of the proposal to advance Maori aspirations, the potential for new facilities or structures, opportunities to represent Maori cultural identity, and a need for further consideration of potential impacts, particularly for environmental issues. 

55.     A further hui with iwi representatives is due in March 2015.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Rick Walden – General Manager, City Centre Integration

Authorisers

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

12 February 2015

 

Central Wharves Strategy

 

File No.: CP2015/00991

 

  

Purpose

1.       To outline the work that has been undertaken by Council agencies to develop a Central Wharves Strategy and to seek endorsement of the preferred option to allow further work to be undertaken and reported back to the Committee.

Executive Summary

2.       City Centre Integration has coordinated a cross-council team representing Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, Waterfront Auckland, ATEED and Ports of Auckland to investigate options for the future development of the Central Wharves from the Viaduct to Bledisloe Wharf and to provide quality public space and access to the waterfront, providing for the continued growth forecast for ferries, cruise ships, tourist services and superyachts.

3.       The preferred option (Captain Cook Extension) will enable the aspirations of the Auckland Plan, City Centre Master Plan, Waterfront Plan and the Downtown Framework to open up public access east of Queens Wharf, delivering economic gains for Auckland and improving operational efficiency and legibility of waterside and landside functions.

4.       The proposal enables the redevelopment of the Downtown Ferry Terminal and will allow for Queens Wharf to achieve its role as the “people’s wharf” and host more major events.

5.       The development of Captain Cook Wharf for larger cruise ships will impact on the Ports of Auckland’s ability to handle the growth of multi cargo. This will require modification and addition to berths and storage space in the Port Precinct.

6.       Following endorsement of the proposed option, officers will develop a business case to investigate timing and funding options. A further report will be provided to the Committee once this is completed.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      endorse Option 4 (Captain Cook Extension) as the preferred option for the development of the Central Wharves.

b)      request that a further report be brought back to the Auckland Development Committee describing issues and opportunities, timing and funding options for any development of the preferred option.

 

Discussion

7.       The City Centre Master Plan envisages Auckland’s waterfront as “a world class destination that excites the senses and celebrates our sea loving Pacific culture and maritime history” and includes actions that will create a new way of seeing and using the Harbour Edge where the city meets the harbour. Opening of the red fence east of Queens Wharf for public access  is one of the key actions.

8.       The Downtown Framework identifies the need for a Central Wharves strategy to “balance the growth of ferry, cruise, visitor services and port operations in a limited space with aspirations for a vibrant people oriented waterfront.” The Framework acknowledges the relationship of this work with other projects including an upgrade of the seawall, redevelopment of Lower Queen Street and Quay Street.

9.       Council agencies have examined the operational difficulties and the growth projections for ferry services, cruise ships, tourist vessels and superyachts, which are summarised as follows:

·   Ferry development plans will result in a growth in patronage by 50% by 2026. This growth is limited by the availability of ferry berths at the Downtown terminal and the inefficiency of the terminal facilities. The proposed option allows growth in ferry berths to meet the future demands

·   Cruise ship visits currently contribute $160m to the Auckland economy delivering nearly 3000 jobs. Cruise ship visits are projected to grow from 100 to around 150 per year by 2030 with passenger numbers growing from 200,000 to 350,000. Cruise ships are getting larger but the new larger ships are currently not able to berth in Auckland. Cruise lines are indicating that these ships will come to Auckland within 5 years. The projected increase in annual value to the Auckland economy to $300m will not occur without additional infrastructure. It is noted that other New Zealand cruise ports need Auckland to be able to accommodate these ships, otherwise they will not come to the country and hence a lost benefit nationally.

·   Tourist services on the Harbour and in the Gulf are increasing. Anticipated growth in the range of tours offered will add to Auckland’s visitor attractiveness but these services are currently spread across the waterfront. Consolidation in a ‘tourism hub’ will enable visitors to readily access these services.

·   Superyacht visits are currently restricted by limited infrastructure both for larger vessels and for the growing demand. Superyachts contribute around $30m annually to the Auckland economy, three-quarters of which is spent with the marine sector.

 

10.     A series of options have been investigated and are described in the attached Central Wharves Study presentation.

11.     Three options were shortlisted from the six identified for further evaluation. The multi criteria analysis considered the ability to deliver the Downtown and Waterfront aspirations, accommodate growth and functionality, realise environmental and cultural gains and considered deliverability. An essential consideration was the need to transform the waterfront for public access and enjoyment.

12.     Common to all options are the consolidation of tourist services at Downtown Marina on Hobson Wharf, and the future extension of Halsey Wharf for superyachts.

13.     The preferred Option 4 delivers the most benefit against the criteria and involves the opening up of the red fence from Queens Wharf to Bledisloe for public use, extension of Captain Cook Wharf for larger cruise ships together with the removal of Marsden Wharf, and the redevelopment of the ferry terminal within a prioritised ferry basin between Princes and Queens Wharves.

14.     The development of Captain Cook Wharf for larger cruise ships will impact on the Ports of Auckland’s ability to handle the growth of multi cargo. This will require modification and addition to berths and storage space in the Port Precinct.

15.     The proposed option realises the strong demand for more and better public space that has been emphasised through all relevant public engagements over the last three years, and was further strengthened by the Downtown public spaces survey run in December 2014. The option enables the additional public spaces anticipated to replace Queen Elizabeth Square, and enables improvements to the quality of existing public spaces with approximately 500 metres of waterfront edge offering increased access to the water. The proposal reinforces the key north - south and east - west pedestrian axes with a corresponding reduction in conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians to complement the initiatives for Quay and Lower Queens Streets.

 

16.     The proposed option benefits Auckland’s economy through the growth and attractiveness of public transport use, increased cruise ship and superyacht visits, and improved visitor services. Opening up the waterfront and extending the public realm provides iconic locations for major events and complements projects to improve the liveability of Auckland, attracting people and investment. There are also benefits for the rest of New Zealand, primarily through the development of Auckland as a cruise hub with a resultant increase in ship visits to other regional ports.

17.     Endorsement of the proposed option will enable officers to further investigate the issues and opportunities for development of the Central Wharves, investigate timing and funding options. A further report will be provided to the Committee once this is completed.

 

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

18.     The range of options being considered have been discussed with the Devonport – Takapuna, and Waitemata local boards. Feedback has been generally supportive of the proposed direction with a need for further consideration of potential impacts, particularly on port operations. 

Maori Impact Statement

19.     The range of options was discussed with Iwi at a hui in December 2014. Feedback has focussed on the importance of the water space and waterfront to Maori, the ability of the proposal to advance Maori aspirations particularly in Admiralty Basin, the potential for a new facility or structure, opportunities to represent Maori cultural identity, and a need for further consideration of potential impacts, particularly for port operations. 

20.     A further hui with iwi representatives is due in March 2015.

General

21.     N/A

Implementation Issues

22.     Implementation of the proposed option will be subject to the development of a business case and endorsement by the Committee.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Rick Walden – General Manager, City Centre Integration

Authorisers

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

12 February 2015

 

Aotea Precinct Development

 

File No.: CP2015/00984

 

  

Purpose

1.       To decide on the approval to commence a formal process to provide Auckland Council with options to manage the divestment of the Civic Administration Building (CAB) as part of wider projects to both optimise Auckland Council’s CBD office accommodation and in conjunction with Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) to develop the Aotea Centre as part of an expanded Arts Precinct.

Executive Summary

2.       A number of reports have been presented to committees since 2011 relating to the diminishing need for this building for corporate office accommodation for the Council. Previous reporting has also highlighted that the building is not suitable for long term use without major refurbishment.

3.       The building has limited short term capability for use in its current condition as many of its aging building services are in need of replacement or major repair. However, the asbestos within the building makes such work difficult and would certainly require the building to be vacated whilst any significant work is carried out.

4.       The Council has made no allowance in the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2015 (LTP) to invest in the maintenance or redevelopment of this building.

5.       In April 2014, the Finance and Performance Committee recognised this position and endorsed Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL) leading an engagement process to test private sector interest in refurbishing the CAB. It sought a report back on the market response, an update on RFA thinking for performing arts facilities around Aotea square and an update on submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) on the heritage status of the CAB. In addition it was requested that an updated demolition cost be obtained.

6.       In view of the wider city development and heritage issues that emerged from this work, these matters were canvassed in an Auckland Development Committee (ADC) workshop on 18 November 2014.

7.       At the November workshop it was reported that:

·   There has been a strong indication from the private sector that the CAB is most suited to residential use given its location and overall configuration. However, to optimise the commercial viability of residential units there was a consistent view that they need to be able to be sold on a freehold basis.

·   RFA is progressing ideas to develop the existing Aotea Centre and CAB site to consolidate a number of significant performing arts groups into one facility. RFA has funding for major renewal works and some capital development of the facility.  This does not include any funding for works in relation to the CAB.  High-level RFA concept design work has identified the opportunity for complimentary private sector involvement to optimise land development.

·   There have been a number of submissions to the PAUP seeking the Council to schedule the building in the Unitary Plan as having the highest level of heritage status (Category A). The commissioners are likely to commence consideration in March 2015 with hearings scheduled for September 2015. The Council’s heritage advisors currently believe a Category B status is appropriate.

·   The most recent updated demolition cost estimate is $16.8million. There is a range of further costs depending on how the site is then treated.

 

8.       On the basis that Council has not provided funding in the LTP for the restoration or demolition of this building, it is recommended in this report that the ADC approves commencing a formal process to seek private sector proposals to refurbish or redevelop the CAB as part of a coordinated project in conjunction with RFA’s initiatives to improve and enlarge the Aotea Centre into an Arts Precinct complex.

9.       This approach will enable the Council to identify the extent to which the building can have heritage protection addressed through a divestment to the private sector and still retain some public benefit and access.

10.     The process to seek private sector involvement will commence with initial expressions of interest that will enable suitable capable parties to be selected to progress to a more detailed submission stage. The detailed submission stage will enable scheme options to be considered and an appropriate solution selected.

11.     In order to invest in the development of solutions both RFA and the developer community require certainty that they are pursuing outcomes that the Council has the intention to support and implement.

12.     RFA are delaying an urgently required renewal program for Aotea Centre to align with CAB outcomes.  This delay cannot be open-ended and RFA are targeting July 2016 for at least a limited or staged physical start. 

13.     The CAB is part of the larger Council land holding whereby it owns all property within the boundaries of Wellesley Street, Queen Street, and Mayoral Drive with the exceptions of the cinema complex and one building on Queen Street. There is an opportunity in considering the future of this building to explore the opportunity to optimise the use of land between the CAB and Mayoral Drive.

14.     A strategic 20 year vision and plan for the area is currently being developed through the Aotea Quarter Framework.  It will include a broad land-use, built form and public realm strategy for the Quarter. The Framework, scheduled for completion in mid-2015, will assist in giving context to any development considerations related to the CAB and Aotea Centre.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL) commencing an ‘expressions of interest’ (EOI) process, based as generally outlined in this paper, to invite interested parties to indicate a desire to participate in a competitive process to present development proposals to respond to the Council’s agreed requirements brief.

b)      agree that a proposed brief of key requirements be reported to the ADC for endorsement before commencing the second stage submission process with shortlisted parties.

c)      agree that parties for the second stage process would be selected on track record, capability, capacity and alignment with Council’s agreed objectives.

d)      agree that a decision to select a preferred approach to the development of the CAB will be made by this committee following recommendations from the ACPL and RFA Boards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion

Submissions to the PAUP on the heritage status of the CAB

15.     A number of submissions, including Heritage New Zealand and the Civic Trust, have been received to the PAUP requesting that the CAB be given an appropriate heritage status in the Unitary Plan.  The current process to address submissions is anticipated to commence with pre-hearings in March 2015.  Mediation is timetabled for June with the hearings currently scheduled for September 2015. The Council will need to take a position on the appropriate heritage status of the building for this approaching process.

16.     The Council has received two recent consultant reports regarding the heritage character of the CAB. The primary report from Salmond Reed Architects recommends that the building be given a Category A status. A review of this report by Archifact supports this conclusion. The Salmond Reed report has been previously circulated to all Councillors and can be provided again on request.

17.     The Council’s internal heritage team sees some merits in the building being given a Category B status. The building is without question an early example of modernist architecture in New Zealand, but there is a view that the level of heritage protection through the Unitary Plan needs further consideration. Ideally the status should not unduly shackle the owner’s ability for adaptive reuse to meet the current demand to utilise a building of this nature. A Category B status is more flexible in this regard. Demolition of a Category A building is prohibited.   Demolition of a Category B building requires a resource consent.

18.     The nature of the heritage classification is significant in that it sets the parameters in which the Council can then deal with the property.  There is a risk that consideration of the PAUP heritage issues could be delayed through the nature of the hearings process.  

19.     It is anticipated that the Committee will be keen to understand the basis on which the Civic building can be retained in a manner that retains key heritage features in a way that retains flexibility for economically viable use.  This is addressed further in the section on ’Key Requirements’ below.

 

Update on cost estimates to refurbish the CAB

20.     The cost estimates for refurbishing the CAB were initially prepared in 2011 by Davis Langdon and were subsequently reviewed and updated by WT Partnership. Both are experienced quantity surveying and cost estimation companies working with projects of this nature on a regular basis.

21.     These costs have been updated in January 2015 and the cost estimates now represent a current estimate of carrying out works inclusive of the estimated escalation costs to completion. In terms of the major refurbishment options this estimate includes cost escalation through a two year construction period.

22.     On this basis, the current estimated cost of a full refurbishment of the CAB as modern office space is $94.6million. This total includes approximately $10million for asbestos removal. The scope of this work assumes:

·   Removal of the existing façade and replacement with a new modern day equivalent glazing system. Existing horizontal and vertical shade fins, screens and balconies removed and replaced.

·   Removal of existing asbestos from all parts of the building.

·   Strip out of internal fittings.

·   Seismic strengthening.

·   Rebuilding of office floors post asbestos removal.

 

23.     The cost of refurbishment for residential use is currently estimated at $79million on the same basis. This assumes seven apartments per floor. It is a lower refurbishment cost than for office space as the internal fit out costs and building services requirements are less extensive with residential use in comparison to office use.

24.     The cost of converting the CAB for residential use is not deterring potential private sector developers from expressing interest in the CAB. The range of likely refurbishment costs is being judged in the context of the increasing sale prices being obtained for good quality residential apartments. The feasibility of retaining the CAB will be tested in the proposed process.

 

Potential use of the CAB for accommodating parts of the Council group

25.     The business case for the purchase of 135 Albert Street assumed no ongoing requirement for office space in the CAB.  In fact, the Council has been able to retain a number of income producing third party tenancies in 135 Albert Street and yet has still been able to accommodate the organisations planned relocations. This building has capacity to accommodate more staff at such time as the Council or CCO’s may require space (subject to lease contract terms) and thus reduce the need to occupy commercially leased premises.

26.     The CCO accommodation needs have largely been managed by each individual CCO.  Overall, AT, ATEED, and the IMSB commercially lease approximately 14,000m2 in the Auckland CBD at rents that average $330m2.

27.     If the Council carried out a refurbishment of the building for offices, a capital cost of the office refurbishment of $95million would cost approximately $550m2 per annum of net office space simply from the debt servicing costs at 5% of the capital cost. However, the market rent of this space would be approximately $270 - $300m2 based on rents achieved recently in the ex-National Bank centre at 205 Queen Street. The two office towers at 205 Queen Street are similar in floor size to the CAB, and are generally considered a more attractive location for commercial tenants.

28.     The CAB currently has 8,479m2 of office space over 16 floors plus two floors used as a cafeteria and training space. Each floor is 453m2 in area. As an office building these are small office floors by modern standards, especially for large organisations. These small floors do not make this building an attractive location for those tenants that are showing an increasing preference for larger office floor plates that provide open plan areas that optimise the ease of internal communication and cost effective use. By comparison the floors at 135 Albert Street average over 1,200m2 per floor.  An office with small floors can suit smaller entities, but again the cost of creating such space should be compared with the cost of renting similar space in the open market.

29.     RFA and its partners in the arts community (APO, New Zealand Opera, Royal New Zealand Ballet, various festivals and others) are exploring having the arts organisations and RFA in one building.  This would have considerable benefits in terms of interaction and vibrancy. 

30.     The CAB, if refurbished, would be suitable for such a use.  RFA and partners cannot completely fill the CAB, but believe that the creation of the Arts Precinct would attract other creative businesses and organisations to this part of the CBD.  However, as indicated above RFA has no funding to contribute to works that could make the CAB suitable for long-term use.  If the CAB is not available, RFA will investigate other nearby commercial buildings that could fulfil this function.

31.     Both from the perspective of relative cost and market appeal there would appear to be no valid financial business case to consider refurbishing this building for continued office use.

 

 

 

32.     If in the longer term the Council group wishes to increase and co-locate a greater part of the wider Council and CCO activities in the Aotea Quarter, there is a large site currently used as car parking adjacent to the Bledisloe Building. This site is required for CRL construction establishment, but once the construction of that project is completed the site is capable of providing significant amount of office space immediately adjacent to the new rail station.  This site might also be suitable for RFA and partners.

 

Potential residential use of the Civic Administration Building

33.     There has been explicit interest from the private sector in converting the CAB to residential use. To a large degree this has been encouraged by a number of similar successful projects and the rising value of residential property.

34.     The cost of converting the CAB to residential use is less than the cost of office refurbishment. However, the viability of residential conversion will relate to the estimated costs in relation to anticipated sales prices for apartments. No private sector parties have carried out any detailed analysis at this time.

35.     ACPL has carried out some ‘desktop’ analysis of the feasibility of residential conversion.  This assumed that it would be possible to provide 7 x 70m2 apartments on each of the 18 floors. For cost purposes we assumed a standard similar to Sugar Tree or 132 Vincent Street.  With this level of construction costs ($6,000m2), and resultant sale prices in the region of $9,000m2 (incl. GST), there would still be the likelihood of some financial input by Council to make the project viable. However, a financial contribution may be offset by other adjacent land that could be made available to such a developer.

36.     The proposed process recommended in this report will test the bounds of this opportunity.

37.     It should be noted that residential use in this location can create ‘reverse sensitivity’ issues that if not addressed through the development and sale process could impact on the use of Aotea Square for some events.

 

Summary of RFA concepts for the development of the Aotea Centre

38.     RFA has a longstanding requirement to address extensive renewal requirements for the Aotea Centre. It has allocated $69million to address these requirements approximately half of which is allocated and approximately half of which is subject to further scoping based on outcomes of the CAB and whether RFA can make some use of the building or site.  RFA has allocated a further $30million of capital funding for growth and new functionality e.g. rehearsal spaces.

39.     RFA corporate and business unit offices currently occupy parts of Aotea Centre that can be repurposed for arts and public use if alternative office accommodation is found nearby.

40.     In association with the planning of the form of an enhanced facility, RFA has the opportunity to combine resources with a number of significant national and regional performing arts organisations that would welcome the ability to rehearse as well as perform in the new centre and have their office accommodation nearby. RFA calls this proposal the Aotea Arts Precinct.

41.     RFA has commercial drivers that also need to be incorporated into the Arts Precinct.  These take two forms: appropriate retail, food and beverage outlets; and configurable space for its Auckland Conventions business unit.

42.     In considering the form of an improved facility, RFA has identified the potential for combining a private sector investment opportunity to bring scale and activity to the enhanced precinct. Bulk and location concepts that show this development potential were presented at the November workshop and copies distributed to all Councillors present.

 

43.     These concept schemes showed that the overall development of the precinct can accommodate a refurbished CAB, but can equally accommodate a full redevelopment of the CAB site to allow new buildings to be provided. RFA has no preference as to whether CAB should be retained or not and can work with both outcomes.

44.     In essence the thrust of the recommendations in this report are to capture the unique opportunity to frame the decision making on the CAB within the context of planning an improved and enlarged performing arts facility with commercial opportunity, that will significantly increase the attractiveness of the Aotea Square environment. Internationally, there are a number of examples of successful residential developments in close proximity or integrated into performing arts facilities.

45.     From RFA’s perspective it is seeking certainty as to the future of the CAB.  RFA can include CAB in Arts Precinct planning whether remaining or being replaced. However, the RFA budget is not intended to address the refurbishment of the CAB. 

46.     RFA is under time pressure due to Aotea Centre’s extensive renewal needs and the requirement to disburse its 2016-2025 LTP funds.  RFA will pursue a more limited development on the Aotea Centre footprint only and within its own funds if that is ADC’s preference or if the timeframes get extended.

 

Market feedback on demand

47.     ACPL commissioned JLL to interview a number of private sector property investors and developers who are either active in the areas of office or residential development and refurbishment. Some parties were also involved with hotel development.

48.     In summary JLL found that residential use was seen as most viable both in terms of the location of this building and its configuration. There was a consistent view that the residential product needs to be offered on a freehold basis.

49.     The respondents saw little demand for office space unless it was from within the Council group. The building was considered a suitable configuration for a hotel conversion, but respondents doubted the feasibility of this.

50.     The findings from JLL are consistent with market analysis provided by Colliers and CBRE.

51.     ACPL further tested the commercial interest in the CAB through senior managers interviewing five major developer/contractors. These interviews included RFA’s thinking on a mixed use (arts/commercial) site and were consistent with the JLL findings and allowed an in depth discussion of perspectives on the opportunity. The discussions supported the direction taken in this report.

52.     Overall the demand and supply of commercial office space is increasingly focussing closer to the waterfront. This will be accelerated by the considerable new volumes of office space that will be developed along Fanshawe Street and into Wynyard Quarter. South of Victoria Street the main office users will be the tertiary sector, the NZ Police and the Council.

53.     The drift of commercial office space north is creating the opportunity for older office buildings to either be redeveloped or converted into residential accommodation. A number of buildings have been converted and several more are under contract to residential developers. In particular, the area south of Mayoral Drive is seeing an increasing focus towards residential use. This area through to Hopetoun Street has already seen a number of successful residential conversions of office buildings.

54.     In this context it is no surprise that market sensitive developers see residential use as the most viable option for the CAB. For such a use to be commercially viable, the residential product needs to be of a suitable quality to achieve a sales value that offsets the developers’ investment costs.

 

The site area proposed as the basis for seeking private sector interest

55.     The attached plan (Attachment A) shows the footprint of the CAB as well as the larger land area that can be included in the proposed process to seek private sector investment interest.

56.     In addressing any RFA proposals or private development proposals for the CAB, it will be necessary to ensure the continuing operation of air conditioning to the Aotea Centre and Town Hall. These facilities currently share the use of chiller plant that also serves the CAB. These buildings also rely on a single standby electricity generator. These matters are already being addressed between RFA and the Council.

57.     The area of land around the Civic Building adds to the opportunity that can be explored through the process contemplated in the recommendations to this report.

 

Outline of the proposed selection process for a private sector partner

58.     Now that the CAB is largely vacant, there is an expectation that the Council will be taking some action to address the future of the building. The proposed process (Attachment B) allows the Council to commence an ‘expressions of interest’ (EOI) process to attract parties of suitable calibre, track record, capacity and alignment of purpose to have the potential to work with the Council group on such a project.

59.     In parallel, it is proposed that officers develop and recommend to this committee the Council’s ‘key requirements’ that would form the basis for a small number of parties selected from the EOI to develop detailed proposals. Following analysis of the detailed proposals it is envisaged that the ACPL and RFA Boards would jointly recommend a preferred proposal. The final stage would be to complete an appropriate development agreement with the selected party.

60.     In concluding commercial terms the Council will wish to fully capture the value of any asset transaction or development opportunity that forms part of a development agreement.

61.     If the EOI process commences in early March and the Committee approves the key requirements by May 2015, it should be possible to have a selected scheme and confirmed development partner by the end of 2015.

62.     It is important to recognise that when the Council invites the selected parties to develop schemes and feasibility studies, there should be the confidence that the Council will act with certainty and follow the process it has approved. This gives the private sector the confidence to invest in the competitive tender process and gives RFA confidence to delay its renewal programme to align with a developers timetable as required.

 

Summary of key requirements

63.     The key requirements that will guide the shortlisted developers through the concept development phase of the divestment process will give the Council the opportunity to set out the parameters of the proposals it wishes to consider. It is intended that in the approach recommended in this report, that the key requirements will be the basis on which the shortlisted parties are requested to develop proposals to realise the private investment opportunities associated with the CAB, its surrounding land and the mixed use development in partnership with RFA.

64.     The requirements should allow the submitters to produce a range of possible solutions. This could include a refurbishment of the CAB, or its replacement with new building forms.

 

 

 

 

 

65.     The key requirements will be presented to the ADC for approval. The key requirements will include, but not be limited to:

·   The desired approach to heritage protection in terms of any proposed refurbishment works of the CAB.

·   The required seismic strength of any refurbished or new build development that form part of an integrated development with the performing arts facility.

·   Urban design requirements.

·   Technical requirements related to air conditioning plant and electricity generators that currently serve several facilities.

·   RFA parameters related to its development requirements for the Aotea Centre.

·   Appropriate commercial terms

 

66.     Submissions from the selected parties will be evaluated against these key requirements and the preferred proposal will be recommended to the ADC for approval. It is conceived that the ACPL and RFA Boards would work jointly on making appropriate recommendations to this committee.

67.     It is not envisaged that the key requirements will dictate a sole outcome, but will give the shortlisted parties the critical factors of importance to the Council that can then be potentially delivered through a number of design approaches. Once the ADC has indicated its preferred scheme the detail can be left to the ACPL and RFA Boards to finalise the terms of a development agreement.

 

Wider Aotea Quarter planning

68.     Council’s Auckland Design Office and Plans and Places Department are currently coordinating the preparation of an Aotea Quarter Framework plan.  A plan showing the area to be covered by the Framework is attached (Attachment C).

69.     Building on the existing 2010-2015 Aotea Quarter Action Plan the Framework will establish a strategic 20 year vision and plan for the Quarter.  It is intended that it be used to guide future planning, project delivery, investment and development decisions of Council and key stakeholders. 

70.     A draft Framework is scheduled to be completed mid 2015 with a Position Paper, including key land-use and built form findings, consulted upon during April 2015.  In this context, it will be sufficiently complete to provide input into the development of the Key Requirements documents referred to above.

 

Financial and budget implications

71.     As stated above the Council has not made any budget provision to refurbish or demolish the CAB in the draft LTP on the basis that this cost would form part of any future project costs once the future direction was agreed. The process recommended in this report enables the Council the opportunity to optimise private investment interest in the CAB and its surrounding land. Any potential costs to Council will in part be shaped by the key requirements that guide the private sector submission process.  This will emerge later in the process.

72.     RFA have indicated that their willingness to work in partnership with a developer. Some form of consortium and merging of resources is envisaged. As stated earlier in this report, RFA can also stay within its own Aotea Centre footprint and fund a more limited development if that is an outcome that emerges.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

73.     The Waitemata Local Board will be briefed on the proposed course of action at its earliest convenience.

Maori Impact Statement

74.     This report and its recommendations do not conflict with the priorities of Maori within the Auckland Plan and there are no known Maori ownership issues related to this site.

Implementation Issues

75.     Implementation will follow the process and programme outlined in this report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Site Image - Civic Administration Building and associated carpark areas

39

bView

CAB Process Outline

41

cView

Aotea Precinct Plan

43

     

Signatories

Authors

Clive Fuhr - Acquisitions and Disposals Manager, Auckland Council Property Limited

David Rankin – Chief Executive Officer, Auckland Council Property Limited

Authorisers

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

12 February 2015

 



Auckland Development Committee

12 February 2015

 



Auckland Development Committee

12 February 2015

 


Auckland Development Committee

12 February 2015

 

Cost of Residential Servicing Study

 

File No.: CP2015/00704

 

  

Purpose

1.       To receive the Cost of Residential Servicing Study prepared in response to Action 15 of the Housing Action Plan (adopted by Council in December 2012).

Executive Summary

2.       The Housing Action Plan identifies the financing of infrastructure as a priority area for action.  The Action Plan notes that “there is … a need to understand the real cost and impact of servicing different types of development in different locations in order to enhance our asset management planning and therefore our development contribution policy…” page 25.  In response, Action 15 of the Housing Action Plan mandated “more thorough empirical research showing the true cost of servicing different types of development and assessing the impacts of location and typology” (page 25).

3.       Auckland Council commissioned and MBIE co-sponsored CIE (Centre for International Economics) and Arup (Engineering Consultancy) to undertake the Cost of Residential Servicing Study (formerly called the Cost of Growth) in 2013. The purpose of the report was to undertake more thorough empirical research showing the true cost of servicing different types of development and assessing the impacts of location and typology.

4.       The project involved collecting information on twelve case studies (a mix of residential developments completed and underway) drawn from different geographical regions and of varying scale and density of development. 

5.       Cost information was sought for the following infrastructure types: water, wastewater, stormwater, transport, schools, community services and parklands.

6.       The findings of the study (See Attachment A for a copy of the Summary from the report) suggest that the cost of servicing in the case studies did vary based on the locality and density of development (a full version of the report will be available under separate cover).

7.       On average - for the case studies investigated - the cost of providing infrastructure services to the greenfield residential developments was estimated to be more expensive than for infill residential developments. The study also confirmed considerable variation in costs between case studies of similar location/density.

8.       The study has also shown how the lack of a consistent approach in entering infrastructure funding agreements with developers, or accepting infrastructure in lieu of development (financial) contributions, has not always resulted in cost effective outcomes for Council.  

9.       In addition, the study highlights the fact that legacy councils adopted different service delivery standards, particularly with regards to stormwater and parklands infrastructure, which also resulted in considerable variance in the per dwelling costs. The study reflects the need for standardised service delivery levels across the region reinforcing the approach now taken by Auckland Council.

10.     A significant limitation of the case study approach was lack of data on operating costs. Given that infrastructure providers may elect for a trade-off between the amalgamated capital expenditure and operating expenditure costs over the life of an asset, it is well understood that the capital expenditure component alone may not adequately reflect the relative cost differences of infrastructure provision between sites.

11.     Council has continued to improve its processes to estimate the cost of servicing individual developments and its understanding of how the costs of infrastructure provision should be allocated. More detailed estimates of the cost of servicing will only enhance Council’s ability to allocate true cost and thereby promote more efficient land use.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      receive the Cost of Residential Servicing Study and note that the findings highlight the need for the following: consistency in whole of life cost reporting; consistency in the use of IFAs and infrastructure charge offsets; and a standardised approach to service levels;

b)      agree this report be circulated to local boards for their information.

 

Background

12.     In May 2013, council called for Expression of Interest (EOI) to undertake an “Auckland Cost of Growth Study”.  The title for this EOI has contributed to confusion about the outcomes of the study.  However the EOI did identify that the study was to “examine the respective costs of new development at inner and outer urban locations” with a view to:

·        informing and improving plans for growth;

·        enhancing asset management planning;

·        promoting affordable housing outcomes;

·        assisting with financial policy development (such as refining development contribution policy).

13.     Following the EOI, a request for proposal was notified in July 2013 and CIE and Arup were commissioned to undertake the study.  There has been a delay in completing the study owing to the need to obtain and interpret information from eight legacy councils, who captured information in different ways.

Study Approach

14.     The project methodology involved collecting information on twelve residential development case studies drawn from different geographical regions and of varying scale and density of development.  These are as follows:

Development Scenarios/sites (combination of type and location)

Type of Development

Location

High density

CBD

Medium Density

Isthmus

Medium Density

At Metropolitan Limit

Low Density

At Metropolitan Limit

Medium Density

Outer Metropolitan Limit

Low Density

Outer Metropolitan Limit

The scenarios were to be populated with actual developments including but not limited to:

North – Long Bay, Takapuna, Millwater, Riverhead South

Central – CBD, Ockham, Ellerslie

West – New Lynn, Babich, Hobsonville Point

South – Hingaia, Papakura Town Centre

 

15.     The study approach resulted in both issues and learnings on infrastructure provision, prior to the amalgamation of Auckland Council. Before Auckland Council, the responsibility for local infrastructure provision resided with legacy councils. There was not a standard procedure with respect to recording capital expenditure and as a result there were significant gaps in the study’s analysis of historical spending.

16.     Legacy councils also adopted different service delivery standards, particularly with regards to stormwater and parklands. The different historical costs of infrastructure provision across the case studies may therefore in part reflect the different standards adopted by legacy councils rather than just locality/density factors.

17.     Similarly, legacy councils differed in the types of infrastructure funding agreements negotiated with developers; so differences in the costs of historical infrastructure provision also reflected these commercial negotiations. Likewise, these new developments required additional capacity not factored into forward development programmes.

18.     It was intended that operating expenditure would also be included in the estimates of servicing costs, but this was only possible for road maintenance and public transport operations, with data unavailable for the other infrastructure types from legacy data.

19.     Where possible, assumptions were made to overcome these limitations; however, the resulting costs per dwelling at best provide indicative cost estimates of servicing the different case study developments. 

Study Outcomes

20.     The results suggest (see pages 6 & 7 of the summary report) that the cost to the public sector of servicing development sites varies, based on the locality and density of development, but that it has proved difficult to provide an accurate estimation of these differences using an historical case study approach.

21.     Council’s current Contributions Policy distinguishes between type and location of development based on average demand. Council is continuing to improve its processes to enhance the estimation of the cost of servicing individual developments and of understanding whether the development, or a combination of the development and the wider community, should be charged for infrastructure provision.

22.     The study findings highlighted the limitations of using legacy council historical data to provide robust estimates of the cost to the public sector of servicing individual developments. The study has also highlighted the considerable variance in the cost of servicing sites of similar locality/density. Nevertheless, the outcomes of the study point to the need for Council to enhance cost reporting to ensure informed decisions on the cost of servicing future development sites.  

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

23.     This study is to help inform city-wide policy taking account of any local variations. This report can be circulated to local boards for their information.

Maori Impact Statement

24.     In undertaking the workstreams and actions within the Housing Action Plan the HPO has been working with Te Waka Angamua (TWA), the  Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB), iwi, mana whenua, Urban Māori Trusts, mataawaka organisations, central government and others to identify opportunities for papakainga and other types of housing and social infrastructure for Māori.  It was not relevant to consult further for this study.

Consultation

25.     As this project is intended to assess the cost of residential servicing and inform other areas within council no specific public consultation is planned.  Where other workstreams develop using the information provided by this study they will need to consult as appropriate.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

26.     There are no significant financial or resourcing implications envisaged.  Should further work be required as an outcome of this work it will be reported to the committee with any associated financial implications.

Legal and Legislative Implications

27.     There are no legal or legislative implications arising from this report. The outcomes of this study help inform future development contribution policy

Implementation Issues

28.     The Cost of Residential Servicing Study is an action identified within the Housing Action Plan. This study has supported the need for ongoing refinement of Council’s cost allocation methodology.

                                                                                                         

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Extract from the CIE, Centre for International Economics, Cost of Residential Servicing report - January 2015

49

b

CIE, Centre for International Economics, Cost of Residential Servicing Report (Complete Version) - January 2015 (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Rachael Logie – Chief Economist

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Ree Anderson - Project Director for Housing

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

12 February 2015

 











     

 


Auckland Development Committee

12 February 2015

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       Special Housing Area Deferred Requests

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information in regards to the development proposal.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information in regards to the development proposal.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

C2       Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan submissions - council position for mediation and hearings -  Historic Character and the Pre-1944 Demolition Control Overlay

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

In particular, the report contains legal advice.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

C3       Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Council Position for Mediation and Hearings - City Centre Port Precinct

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

In particular, the report contains legal advice.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.